I walked into a downtown Chicago Starbucks on Sunday and saw a large sign behind the counter that said, 'STARBUCKS VIA ARRIVES IN 4 DAYS." I inquired about it.
ME to the BARISTA: "What's the difference between the VIA that's in the store now and the VIA that's arriving in four days?"
BARISTA: "Nothing. We were a test market and have had it for a while." (See all the VIA packs in front of the register in the photo.)
ME: "Oh, that seems kind of odd that you say it's arriving when it's already here."
BARISTA: "We probably shouldn't have put that up, but they made us do it."
And how's your VIA promotion going, Starbucks Gossip readers?
ME to the BARISTA: "What's the difference between the VIA that's in the store now and the VIA that's arriving in four days?"
BARISTA: "Nothing. We were a test market and have had it for a while." (See all the VIA packs in front of the register in the photo.)
ME: "Oh, that seems kind of odd that you say it's arriving when it's already here."
BARISTA: "We probably shouldn't have put that up, but they made us do it."
And how's your VIA promotion going, Starbucks Gossip readers?
I just don't see how this logically can work out in Starbucks' favour.
- Those who buy instant, it can be reasonably assumed, do it because it's cheaper.
--> Starbucks Via is almost the same price as regular coffee! Schultz claims that he's trying to tap into the billion dollar instant coffee industry but he's not going to do that by charging $1 per cup of instant!
- Those who go into Starbucks do it because they like the quality, and are willing to pay the price.
--> Why would they want to settle for less? And these true coffee drinkers would probably find some way to get brewed coffee, rather than settle for instant coffee.
I just don't see this working out for Starbucks.
- A current partner (barista)
Posted by: Shelly | September 29, 2009 at 08:53 PM
To "Me":
True, no one has ever gotten rich working at a coffee shop, but let me tell you from years of experience, Starbucks is by FAR the worst to work in, and the least rewarding. You can be willing to REALLY learn about coffee, go work at a li'l indie shop, make $4-$5/hour more than you would at Starbucks, and at the end of a few months be able to hand a customer a delectable latte in a ceramic mug with a gorgeous foam flower on top, pulled manually from a fine-tuned hot rod of an espresso machine.
Oh, and there's no insane sales pressure and quarterly promotions..because the product sells itself.
You can feel like you're really trusted and valued.
You can have integrity when you blather on about the nuances of such and such a drink...because they're really THERE, and the drink is actually worth the customer's money.
There is no corporate, no DMs, no scheduling hassles, no rug pulled out from under you. There is your owner, and he is either mad at you or he is not, and if he is, find out what he's about and make him happy. Simplicity.
Now tell me why the ever-loving Pete people still work at Starbucks? Just coming to this site and reading brings back the Ick Ick Ick factor of the days when I did...
Guys, I'm not bashing you, I'm just telling you something BETTER is out there. I hate that nauseated, pressured feeling of being an abused cog in a worn-out machine that's trying to prove it's something great...and the pressure's on YOU to create the magic show. Blech.
Posted by: A Real Barista from Boulder | September 30, 2009 at 04:47 PM
So odd how that works. The drive for consistency in displays throughout the stores has led the company to mandate specific signs be put up on specific dates, regardless of the store. MANY stores are in test markets for various launches. My store happens to be one of the flagship stores, and every time something is released, we have it several weeks or a month before most stores. This said, we run into this same signage problem. The company is very smart as a general rule, but the EXTREME attention to and demand for 100% consistency between stores causes some weird situations.
Posted by: J Ollando | October 21, 2009 at 03:07 AM